Over the past couple of months Perf and I have had an ongoing discussion, across several threads, about debts and deficits since 1980, which party’s policies have contributed more to them, and which party’s policies have been more fiscally responsible. I thought it better to consolidate those discussions into a single thread.

My definition of “fiscally responsible” is the prudent expenditure and investment of public funds for purposes that improve the economy and the general well-being of the country, while raising sufficient revenue to fund that spending without running extensive or extended deficits that pile up debt.

It’s not really debatable that the economy under Democratic administrations has outperformed Republican administrations, over any significant time period during the last century. This is true by any measure: rates of GDP growth, employment growth, aggregate wealth accumulation, stock market performance, etc. None of that is even debatable, unless you cherry-pick a few years here and there. But this has not been the focus of our discussions.

Instead, our debate has focused on deficits and debt, primarily the period since 1980 when the debt suddenly started to climb much faster than economic growth can reasonably sustain over time. On this, it also is not subject to reasonable debate that the aggregate debt added under Republican administrations has far exceeded that under Democratic ones.

I made this very point in a thread discussing the impact of the debt on dealing with the recession, and provided the following numbers by presidential administration:

Perf didn’t dispute the numbers, other than to call them “spin.” He did suggest that they should be adjusted for inflation (which, actually, would make the deficits under Reagan and GHW Bush larger). To that I responded with this:

“The OMB historical tables give composite deflators for conversion of revenue and outlays into constant 2005 dollars from 1940 to the present. You are welcome to crunch those numbers if you want to, but none of the OMB or CBO reports do so on the debt.

“Instead, economists put historical debt into context by referencing it as a percent of GDP. Here are those numbers:

32.5% Debt/GDP when Reagan took office. Up 20.6 percent points to 53.1 under Reagan. Up 13.0 points to 66.1 under GWH Bush. Down 9.5 points to 56.4 under Clinton. Up 28.8 points to 85.2 under GW Bush. Up 13.5 points to 98.7 under Obama (through FY 2011; probably another 5 points at end of 2012). “

Idiots out walking around having fun together dismissing the incompetency and corruption of the Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rice Crime Cabinet often believe that someone other than the dog owner is responsible for picking up the dog poop left in the park by the dog owner.

Minneapolis MN

Username hidden
(9100 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

You only see things through your bias. The President either has a power or they don't. It's not dependent on charisma or fortitude. The same can be said for congress.

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(19362 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"You have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to understand these things on anything deeper than a superficial level."

After re-reading the last few posts in this thread, I'm ready to rest my case on this one.

Belle Chasse LA

Username hidden
(14109 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Oh, I've said many times that Obama hasn't shown much in the way of tough leadership. But that doesn't diminish the fact that strong presidents like Reagan and Clinton got the policies they wanted over congressional resistance. Or that dufus presidents like GWB got what they wanted from a congress controlled by their own party.

Nor does it change the fact that the budget for last year was done largely via continuing resolutions that kept in place most of what he wanted, and got, from previous years.

And even though Obama has been overly conciliatory (what, maybe two vetoes?), he started getting his way on a lot of stuff when he finally started getting tough with Republicans hell-bent on saying no. Just a few examples off the top of my head:

Whether or not you agree with the Keystone pipeline, he defeated Congress' attempt to force it through on a fast-track basis.

He also threatened to veto the military appropriations bill last December, until the changes he wanted were incorporated into the bill during conference.

Also last December, House Republicans initially refused flatly to go along with Obama's request for an extension of the reduced payroll tax rate unless it was in conjunction with a further extension of the Bush tax cuts on upper earners. He refused, and the Republicans caved to his demand for the payroll tax reductions alone.

Earlier this year, Republicans responded to Obama's request for continuation of the 3.4% student loan rate with a bill that combined that with repeal of a section of Obamacare. He threatened a veto; Republicans caved and enacted the student loan bill he wanted standing alone.

I could go on with plenty of examples, but you will never accept the fact that Presidents wield any power, regardless of the facts. So why should I bother? You're boringly immune from evidence and reason.

Belle Chasse LA

Username hidden
(14109 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"As strained as your logic is, it applies only to a lame duck President on his way out of office, which only happens every four or eight years. Alice in Wonderland comes to mind."

haha! How powerful has Obama been in passing a budget??

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(19362 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"So you like ONE of the numbers but attempt to discredit almost the rest of the piece."

I pointed out the article's utter lack of numbers to support it's conclusion that Obama caused most if the 2009 increase. If you see in that article any numbers specific to Obama's actual initiatives, point them out. They're not there.

Belle Chasse LA

Username hidden
(14109 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"President Obama’s Stimulus spending bill included an increase in food stamps and an extension of unemployment benefits"

I pointed out this quote from the Heritage article because it referred to "an increase" while artfully dodging the dollar amount of that increase under the stimulus. Instead, it tried to leave the false impression that all or most of the 2009 increases were due to the stimulus.

Belle Chasse LA

Username hidden
(14109 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"I used it to the extent it validated a specific dollar amount from the Congressional Quarterly. DUH. "

So you like ONE of the numbers but attempt to discredit almost the rest of the piece.

That's some funny shit right there.

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(19362 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"President Obama’s Stimulus spending bill included an increase in food stamps and an extension of unemployment benefits that should not be attributable to President Bush. Also, the category of “Other Federal” spending spiked from $261 billion to $540 billion."

From the Source YOU quoted. I don't know what game you're playing, but you're the loser as usual.

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(19362 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"hahahaha!!! You're the one that used it as a source!!!!!!"

I used it to the extent it validated a specific dollar amount from the Congressional Quarterly. DUH.

This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.All Members are over 18 years of age.Terms of Use|Privacy Policy